Is income tax necessary?

[Loss Leader]

That's the country's current problem. Too many people using/receiving money from the government who aren't contributing. How many services would the government actually provide?

Perhaps, like the Department of Education, the government could provide services that actually help its citizens become productive and add to the nation's wealth.

As for how to get babies and octogenarians to pay their share, I'm stumped.

 

[Dr. Keith]

However, the govt shut down for about two weeks in October and nothing bad happened as a result. Just a one month unpaid shutdown each year could probably save a hundred billion or so. I see no problem with that since it's what manufacturing companies have done regularly in bad economic times and they managed to stay in business as a result.

Are you actually contending that the government shutdown saved money?

That's novel, I'd like to see some support for that one.

 

[wrs]

Are you actually contending that the government shutdown saved money?

That's novel, I'd like to see some support for that one.

Read what I said. The govt shutdown won't save money unless it's as I said, unpaid.

 

[Joecool]

Perhaps, like the Department of Education, the government could provide services that actually help its citizens become productive and add to the nation's wealth.

As for how to get babies and octogenarians to pay their share, I'm stumped.

Babies usually have parents to care for them and octogenarians would have contributed when they were younger and able bodied. I'm not advocating for zero government help for some portions of our population, but the number of people not contributing and receiving currently is becoming alarming.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Well I can see a flaw right away. Military for instance would be billed automatically as you are assumed to be "protected" by it.

That's not a flaw, it's a feature. However the system needs to be 'opt in' so nobody gets billed for services they didn't ask for. If I don't believe that the military is 'protecting' me then why should I have to pay for it?

Now as regards SSI, how would that work since it's the people using it that don't currently pay for it? Same for Medicaid and Medicare.

But presumably they did pay into it in the past. If not then of course they should get nothing.

The big advantage is that every citizen could see the actual list of services they're supposedly getting from the government, and can make an informed decision about whether they're getting their money's worth.

Yes, because I will make a much more informed decision once I know exactly where my taxes are being spent, and I don't need to be an 'expert' to know whether it's appropriate. The Defense Budget has thousands of line items, which I will carefully scrutinize before deciding to de-fund the military. For example, last year they spent 52.5 billion on "Overseas Contingency Operations". What the hell is that? As an informed citizen, I know that it is just another waste of money...

Eliminating the Department of (mis)Education.
Eliminating HUD.
Eliminating agricultural subsidies.
Eliminating subsidies for solar energy, wind energy, coal production, etc (90% of the Department of Energy).
Eliminating federal subsidies for "high-speed train" boondoggles (see California) and mass transport that doesn't.
Returning the EPA to science-based regulations.
...
How many more do you need?

Everything. Why pay taxes to the government for any services, when we can just buy them directly and cut out the middleman? Why pay 627 billion for 'defense' when I can just buy an AR15 and provide my own? The same goes for education, energy, transport, agriculture, the environment etc. I can think of many more worthwhile projects that my money would be better spent on (have you seen the latest ipad Air? It's awesome!!!... and only $799 with 128GB).

Income taxes are unneccessary & inefficient.

That's because the government is unnecessary & inefficient. As informed citizens we have a much better idea of where and how to spend our money than any government.

The most efficient tax is an Economic Rent Tax that, unlike all others, does NOT add to prices, does not deter production, distort market mechanisms or otherwise create deadweight losses.

The most efficient form of tax is no taxes at all. Anything that disturbs the Free Market is a deadweight loss.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Read what I said.

OK, you said:

However, the govt shut down for about two weeks in October and nothing bad happened as a result.

I remember a lot of bad things. The key one for this argument being a ton of money wasted. That was the point of my query.

The govt shutdown won't save money unless it's as I said, unpaid.

Are you now saying there was no cost to the government shut down other than the back pay? I have to admit that I haven't teased out all the costs, but I'd be surprised if back pay was even the the primary cost associated with the shutdown. Do you have numbers to back that up?

You seem to be proposing that all government employees take a one month vacation, all at the same time. If you think that will lead to a more efficient government I'd like to see your work.

 

[wrs]

OK, you said:



I remember a lot of bad things. The key one for this argument being a ton of money wasted. That was the point of my query.

The wasted money was paying for people to be on furlough. Real businesses shut down and don't pay any expenses other than unavoidable fixed costs. Govt can do the same.

Are you now saying there was no cost to the government shut down other than the back pay? I have to admit that I haven't teased out all the costs, but I'd be surprised if back pay was even the the primary cost associated with the shutdown. Do you have numbers to back that up?

I have no idea what the costs were, why should there be any?

You seem to be proposing that all government employees take a one month vacation, all at the same time. If you think that will lead to a more efficient government I'd like to see your work.

Govt is inefficient by definition. The one month vacation seems fine for all non self funding departments, defense included.

 

[Joecool]

The wasted money was paying for people to be on furlough. Real businesses shut down and don't pay any expenses other than unavoidable fixed costs. Govt can do the same.

I have no idea what the costs were, why should there be any?

I agree. It's not a furlough if the workers are back paid. That's a paid vacation.

There would be costs such as utilities, etc but those costs should be minimal as most business's major cost is labor.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The wasted money was paying for people to be on furlough. Real businesses shut down and don't pay any expenses other than unavoidable fixed costs. Govt can do the same.

Yes, about $2billion was for back pay, but most people peg the actual cost of the shutdown as much higher.

I have no idea what the costs were, why should there be any?

Indeed, when you have no idea I suggest incredulity may not be the best argument. You could look into why others think it was very expensive and harmful to our economy.

Or support your position that there was no cost, instead of me trying to point you to sources that have tallied the cost at about 12 times the salary loss. I'm sure there is some analyst somewhere that has put together an argument that the total cost of the shutdown was on the order of $2 billion.

Govt is inefficient by definition.

Indeed, the only thing less efficient is no government.

The one month vacation seems fine for all non self funding departments, defense included.

I'm sure our allies would be interested in knowing what month all of our troops will be taking shore leave. Our enemies may, too.

 

[wrs]

Indeed, when you have no idea I suggest incredulity may not be the best argument. You could look into why others think it was very expensive and harmful to our economy.

These are made up costs. Nothing but baseless claims from govt apologists there. If done properly, there should still be fees collected and the parks should have remained open. The mail continued to be delivered. The shutdown was done in an inefficient way on purpose by crybaby govt employees and bureaucrats in order to teach the politicians and taxpayers a lesson. My message to them is that we don't need you if you don't want to operate on the same basis as the rest of us.

 

[ZirconBlue]

The wasted money was paying for people to be on furlough. Real businesses shut down and don't pay any expenses other than unavoidable fixed costs.

And then those employees collect unemployment. . . from the government.

Govt can do the same.

. . . and pay unemployment instead of wages.


Oh, and well-run businesses don't frequently shut down to save money. After all, if they're shut down, they're also not making money.

 

[Xulld]

Here in the US income tax is not even 100 years old. Read up on the history of taxation, worthy read.

 

[wrs]

And then those employees collect unemployment. . . from the government.



. . . and pay unemployment instead of wages.


Oh, and well-run businesses don't frequently shut down to save money. After all, if they're shut down, they're also not making money.

Actually, the unemployment they collect is paid for out of a tax that has been collected on payrolls. This is a govt benefit that is probably not something that should be there in the first place since it penalizes well-run business that are paying their employees to fund those that cannot.

Well run businesses may have these shutdowns due to adverse economic conditions or seasonality of their business. Your claim is overly general.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Actually, the unemployment they collect is paid for out of a tax that has been collected on payrolls. This is a govt benefit that is probably not something that should be there in the first place since it penalizes well-run business that are paying their employees to fund those that cannot.

Now, how did I guess that you would be against unemployment insurance?

Well run businesses may have these shutdowns due to adverse economic conditions or seasonality of their business. Your claim is overly general.

Perhaps, but, generally if a business is shutting down to save money, it does not bode well for that future of that business.

 

[wrs]

Perhaps, but, generally if a business is shutting down to save money, it does not bode well for that future of that business.

Lot's of seasonal businesses shut down out of season. The BLS juggles labor stats for seasonality.

 

[Loss Leader]

Anything that disturbs the Free Market is a deadweight loss.

Like regulations that keep poisons out of food or children out of coal mines.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Says you. The deficit hawks have failed time and again to propose a significant reduction in expenditure. That's not to say that it is impossible but the vast majority of money is either well spent and/or is specifically targeted to support some aspect of life that other people think vital.

Do you have any specific examples from the U.S. budget where hundreds of billions of dollars could be saved ?

Close out two branches of the armed forces, the marines and the coast guard? Stop supporting the moochers and end social security and medicare?

It is all the pesky consequences, added to it that those who favor the largest cuts in spending are very much against having them in defense, thinking we need to out spend the rest of the world combined.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Perhaps, like the Department of Education, the government could provide services that actually help its citizens become productive and add to the nation's wealth.

As for how to get babies and octogenarians to pay their share, I'm stumped.

Work or you starve like the good old days. You so rarely see 5 year olds in factories earning their room and board after being purchased from poor houses any more. Bring back real capitalism I say.

And when they get mangled you turn them out to starve. Cost effective.

 

[ponderingturtle]

The wasted money was paying for people to be on furlough. Real businesses shut down and don't pay any expenses other than unavoidable fixed costs. Govt can do the same.

One month a year with out air travel would be great.

Then each year the republicans can again become shocked that the national park system is part of the federal government. And we never will appreciate the CDC until we get a real plague again and lose say 5% of the population to it like in the good old days.

 

[ponderingturtle]

These are made up costs. Nothing but baseless claims from govt apologists there. If done properly, there should still be fees collected and the parks should have remained open. The mail continued to be delivered. The shutdown was done in an inefficient way on purpose by crybaby govt employees and bureaucrats in order to teach the politicians and taxpayers a lesson. My message to them is that we don't need you if you don't want to operate on the same basis as the rest of us.

How does a park remain open when the staff is laid off?

Or are you making some weird argument for increasing vacation time while decreasing pay across the board for government employees? That would only help if they are overstaffed.